Editors Only: Stories Pictures Gems Shortcuts Discuss Prefs Admin Bulletins Logoff Help

Sat, May 11, 2002; by lauren ready.

In this age of political correctness, it seems simple for arts writers to let their opinions fall by the wayside and to consequently let what they "should" write sway their writing. I admire John Mangan's writings because, while they might seem a bit harsh at times, are above all, sincere. He claims that he does have to hold back at times but he surely does write negative reviews. What follows is a look at some of Mangan's negative reviews and how he crafts his negativity.

In "St. Petersburg Symphony triumphs with Tchaikovsky", Mangan writes a generally positive review with snips of negativity. Since I believe that Mangan's goal is to write a generally positive review, when he includes negative aspects he is careful to air on the side of positivity. When he is negative he uses such criticism as "over-serene" and "not homing in on the emotional center", which do not come across as severely negative. He even paints a beautiful picture in the reader's mind when he is negative. He writes that "the woodwinds became lost in all the excitement", which is a criticism that makes me smile.

When Mangan wants to write a negative review, he does not hold back. In "KLR Trio shines with NHSO, but guest conductor disappoints", Mangan opens with a thread of negativity and weaves a tale of disgust with the performance. He begins by writing that the NHSO's luck with good guest conductors "had run out". He continues with such stabs of negativity as "a rather nondescript reading", "a rather narrow vocabulary that is recycled throughout, sounding like a storyteller who never leaves the present tense", and he likens guest conducting to "being a rabbit in the land of wolves". Throughout the article, Mangan is subtely negative but the reader comprehends Mangan's distaste for the performance through the piercing negative phrases that he employs.

I believe that Mangan displays twinges of political correctness in his slightly negative review of the Vienna Choir Boys but his "niceness" is well-deserved. Mangan knows how mean a reviewer is who attacks the singing capabilities of seven year old boys. He does have a responsibility as an arts writer to respect the performing artists. Therefore, while the reader gets the sense that Mangan did not particularly think that the performance was of high quality, he attempts to distribute blame to other sources besides the choir boys. He attacks conductor Laurence Ewashko for choosing pieces that were homogeneous. Furthermore, he writes that the choir had an overly serious demeanor, which in some respects could be taken as a compliment to these young boys. Mangan attempts to give the choir boys an excuse for their poor performance by writing that the boys have pressure on them to perform and the long touring hours must be tiring. He ends the article by complementing the choir on a job well done with some of the songs.

I believe that Mangan is well-versed in the ways of negative reviewing since he displays that each negative review differs depending on the arts writer's objective.

Comment On This Page